03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) [140] The definition of a journalist in s 68(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 can include a blogger. The definition does not impose quality requirements and does not require the dissemination of news to be in a particular format. The focus is on the medium disseminating new or recent information of public interest. [141] The relevant time for assessing whether s 68(1) applied to Mr Slater and the Whale Oil website was the time when the sources made their disclosures which resulted in the publications at issue. [142] The Whale Oil website was a news medium in that it was disseminating new and recent stories of public interest. While its style and focus can be criticised, it was breaking news to a significant section of the New Zealand public. [143] Whale Oil was published with a significant degree of regularity, and required a sufficient degree of work and effort for it to be in the normal course of Mr Slater’s work for him to receive information from informants for publication. [144] Mr Slater promised to protect his sources. [145] Therefore, Mr Slater was a journalist and Whale Oil a news medium, and he could invoke the protection in s 68(1). [146] Section 68(1) did not apply to Mr Spring as his identity had already been disclosed. Section 68(1) applies to prevent only disclosure of sources that have not been revealed. [147] Rule 8.46 of the High Court Rules, which can be used to prohibit interrogatories seeking sources of information in defamation proceedings, does not apply as it is in the interests of justice that the sources be disclosed. [148] Therefore, Mr Slater’s appeal succeeds in part. The Judge was incorrect to hold that s 68(1) did not apply to Mr Slater (although not in relation to the informant, Mr Spring), but correct to hold that Mr Slater could not invoke the protection in r 8.46 of the High Court Rules. [149] Mr Blomfield’s application for an order under s 68(2) that s 68(1) is not to apply to Mr Slater is granted for these reasons: (a) Having regard to the issues there is a public interest in disclosure of the identity of the informants. (b) There are no likely adverse effects of the disclosure on the informants save the possibility of civil action against them by Mr Blomfield, which is not a significant factor. (c) There is no wider public interest arising from any public importance of the issues or the persons involved, because (i) this arises from a private dispute, and a requirement to disclose is unlikely to have a chilling effect on other whistleblowers and informants who should not be discouraged from going to the media; (ii) the disclosures are extreme and vindictive and have the hallmarks of a private feud; (iii) the documents disclosed by the sources by providing Mr Blomfield’s hard-drive and other documents appear to have been obtained illegitimately. [150] On balance the public interest in disclosure outweighs any adverse effects on the informants and the ability of the media to freely receive information and access sources. www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 29/30